re: TERN and TeraBeam
Curtis, Ray, Thread,
I'm finding it difficult examining the attributes and merits of each of these
companies (TERN and TeraBeam) because of all of the noise surrounding
them. In any event, and on the other hand, many individuals may not have
ever heard of TeraBeam were it not for Gilder's bringing it to the fore in
the March report. The same cannot be said about TERN, though, because
many investors were already aware of them prior to their coverage
in the monthly Gilder report.
What I will say about the latter firm is that if there is any cause to be
celebrating TERN (e.g., such as "some" of their new acquisitions, which I
do believe "might" be spelling out a better long term strategy for them than
they had previously), it is not for the primary reason that George Gilder
has claimed, that being because of the CDMA component in their cable
modem line, i.e., S-CDMA.
IMO, S-CDMA over cable can only be regarded as a means of
prolonging the agony of analog for those subscribers who reside in
the territories where cable operators use them, over a much longer period
of time than a natural death would suggest. Where TERN's modems (and
many other cable vendors' wares are concerned, but we're focusing on
TERN here) are installed, users will have to live with black coax, without
the benefit of fiber, in a bandwidth restricted mode, ad infinitum. That has
been a selling point of theirs, btw.
I find this especially paradoxical, since it is coming from Gilder whose
primary arguments ever since I've read him have called for the use of
optical technologies deployed towards a fiber-spherical end, when it
comes to terrestrial wired systems, and the removal of legacy constructs.
I must ask, I am compelled to ask: What can be considered more legacy
in communications today than the cable industry's use of a fifty five year
old analog coaxial cable model?
To promote TERN in this context is to effectively justify the perpetuation
of a technology which preserves the embedded investments in analog
technologies of the cable cartel, which will (subtlely or otherwise) create a
huge roadblock to the eventual fiberization of those sections of America
and the World who use them. This contradiction is so extreme that I
cannot explain it, even in a hypothetical sense, much less by using any
rational arguments, even if I were to assume the role of devil's advocate.
Does this mean that TERN has no place in the universe of cable tv plant,
anywhere? No, it certainly has a place, especially for those operators
whose finances are extremely depressed, or whose vision may be blurred
or disinterested in seeing the promise of the "fiber sphere" fulfilled. Or
those who need an extremely quick fix in order to come up to the cable
modem speeds of the Joneses next door, or, in order to remain one step
ahead of the encroaching wireless service which is finally getting "off the
ground."
But, as such, I would regard TERN's s-cdma approach as a mere band
aid in these instances, and by no means as an "ascendant"
technology simply because the acronym which spells out their chief
technology resembles that of Qualcom's. Qualcom, as you both/all know,
negotiates the near-infinite realm of free space, which has a near-infinite
level of head room. TERN, on the other hand, deals with the limitations of
coaxial cable plant. These are two entirely different domains of conquest.
[[Granted, wireless operators must conform to channel limits
and spectrum rules, too. But those are arbitrary, whereas the
limitations of coaxial cable are absolute.]]
There is a lot of noise on this channel, IMO. TERN's s-cdma is actually
antithetical to optical progress in cable tv systems. Which, btw, is not to
suggest that any other cable modem manufacturer's wares at the current
time are any better, except that others do not promote the continued
exclusive use of coaxial cable.
Other manufacturers who are Cable Labs DOCSIS compliance aspirants,
i.e., who shoot for acceptance in that realm, are not the answer to the
question here, either, from my point of view. Not unless they include a
migration path to an all- or nearly all-optical solution down the road.
But such is not in the cards at this time where the larger MSOs are
concerned, and so for this reason it is not a major concern for the cable
modem vendors, either. But pressure will be coming from other directions
which will change all of that, sooner than they think, rather than later. And
then we will talk about disruption.
=====
TeraBeam? We'll continue talking about this fascinating technology as
more information becomes available. I think that they've got something to
keep a serious eye on. But I will not be buying the stock of the paper clip
company who supplies their offices, nor will I rush to buy the
manufacturer of lenses which they are using in their current breadboard
units or prototypes at this stage, as a possible means of making a long
term investment.
Unit zero production suppliers during prototype stage do not usually wind
up being the suppliers of choice once the proof of concept is in, nor when
they are producing quantities of thousands, or tens of thousands,
necessarily. The Mead scramble was an extremely interesting exercise to
observe, and makes for an interesting study all its own. Don't you think?
I would like to see more discussion here on the TeraBeam model.. as well
as other I-R free space alternatives as well, such as those which Dave
Horne brought to the board upstream.
Like I've said before: When the Terabeam model picks up steam it will
reinvigorate the acceptance of a model which has been around for close
to two decades, and one that has worked very satisfactorily in the past
when deployed under the proper conditions. In so doing, the TB story will
create a rising tide effect and lift all other worthy vendors' models, too,
including (perhaps 'especially') the point-to-point models which will be
preferred for reasons of reliability and security. The latter being two
performance areas which need to be examined more as we go forward
here with these discussions, as well.
As an aside, and something else to think about in this context: Think about
what companies like ARCC, CYCO, OSAX or one of the other "up the
riser" or "down the riser" firms --such as those who are backed by the
major office building real estate firms-- can do with an arsenal of i-r
"guns" (as they are called by veteran users of i-r systems) if they prove in
in a satisfactory manner. Heck, even WCII and ARTT in limited
instances, once they get over the shock of having to deal with this
renewed reality. It's certainly already giving the dark fiber guys fits. That's
why I suspect that they are among the new operational partners (or
aspiring to become such) of TeraBeam, and among those who have yet to
be announced.
FAC |
